ha

[lifesabitch0303]

my theory-so basically the world is ending fairly soon in the next 60-90 years or so by nuclear war, viruses, or overpopulation and using all of the resources and suffocating in our own pollution. the end

[OmegaZeto]

No.

Support this "theory" with provable or disprovable hypotheses, please.

[lifesabitch0303]

well the population capacity for the world is about 6 billion and we have or are close to exceeding that, therefore nature will take its course

[junglizm]

That is not a theory, it's a guess.

[skully]

nature involves nuclear weapons :rolleyes:

[OmegaZeto]

True... There are thousands of factors to consider where the "maximum population" of Earth is concerned.
The REAL issue is not "how many organisms will fit here?", but "what kind of life will those organisms live according to density?"

If the world had only 1 billion people, I'm sure we would not have so great a technological infrastructure, but the 1 billion would certainly have more non-bound evological energy to work with...

[void]

the world population reached 6 billion in late 1999.

[lifesabitch0303]

Yeah i don't know some scientist will probably find some solution but the goverment will be too concerned with getting more money to care

[dustinzgirl]

Actually, natural disaster funding takes up a large part of financial resources, as does a several million dollar a year NASA investigation to tag and documant the orbit of each of the thousands of asteroids and comets in our solar system.

Read Koontz Twilight Eyes. Interesting stuff.

Anyways, carry on with the idiocy.

[RetArt]

Well, I disagree. There will be no "end of the world" anytime soon. It is true that everything has a beginning and an end. C.G. Jung saw the worlds lifespan alike that of men. Lifes aim is to reach the main purpose, the main goal. That is death. Jung saw that world and life is like that. That it is all just happening to reach an end. Nothing.

I hate it when people say "Nature fights back" and "Nature shows its superiority on men", thus making nature seem like a vicious breathing, living thing. Nature is not fighting back, it just reacts, reflects, and goes on with it´s cycle.
Avian flu for example. It is not because mother Nature is pissed at us. Evolution in practice (if it truly breaks out). Kinda like the Spanish flu or the Plague. If six billion people crowd the earth that is not scaled for such amounts, there will pe a pandemia, diseases, wars etc. The fact that a fair share of them are living in absolute poverty does not help.

I doubt the idea of nuclear war. Small countries are not that stupid, they just build them to show off. The only country I see using the nukes is USA. The economy is practically non-existant, there are wars fought, US-citizens are turning against their government, non-americans are turning into anti-american in unbelieveble numbers. Not to mention below_poor-diplomacy, poverty, cash-cropping, unequality etc etc. When there is a war raginc people often turn a blind eye to the domestic problems. So it is good to have a war, not to mention that at the same time some elitist-companies gain unimaginery amounts of money (eg. Halliburton).

The other is Russia. It is having its troubles in Chechenya (sorry bout spelling, spell it whole different here), it is balancing on a thin rope on gas-issues in Ukraine, there is no freedom of speech as almost all papers are government owned. There is huge corruption, poverty, and a history of dictator-idolising. Russian are looking for authority. Not to mention that there is a former KGB-officer in power. There is great corruption, mafia is everywhere and so on and so on.

If I´d had to choose I´d say USA would be the one banging off with the nukes. Russia has had a very very discreet policy with nuclear weapons, even during the cold war.

[drnknbndr]

All Bush needs to do is launch a nuke, and it's Apocalypse, and i'll see you guys burn in Hell from Heaven. :]

[Jiraffe]

http://www.northernsun.com/images/thumb/0456ItsYourHell.jpg

Get the picture yet?

[HappyNinja]

Well, if anybody believes the whole Mayan calendar thing, we've got until Dec. 16 2012 until this planet's life cycle starts over. I think the reign of humans on this planet will be over soon, as we stopped our evolution millenia ago. We learned to adapt instead of evolve. Seeing as how technology is critical to most of our adaptation to the changing cycles, we're screwed if something were to interrupt our use of technology.

[Base]

Well, if anybody believes the whole Mayan calendar thing, we've got until Dec. 16 2012 until this planet's life cycle starts over.

for the above: Has anyone seen the Anime Serie RahXephon, that goes on a similar coarse to the Mayan calander. It's a really good series.

Going to another thing here about weapons and nature and so on....everything that is broken down into it's simpilist form is natural being it a flower or a WMD or something. Everything is made up of something that is made up of something which come from things in nature (like elements and so on). So it could be said that Technology is nature? I believe that EVERYTHING is natural and nature will sort it out one way or another, be it rising sea levels or wierd weather situations or even natural disasters. So actually even if we destroy our selves through out own stupidity, it is still nature taking care of things becaus we are nature. Nature kicks ASS. This is my opinion so...yeah! :D

[wilko125]

Read Koontz Twilight Eyes. Interesting stuff.



Fuck yeah, that book had me reading well into the early hours of the morning. Seriously read it, its a very good book!

[Spikey]

Read Bush's apocolypse. Over population isn't a very big concern. Many epidemics and plagues are soon to come. Natural disasters and such, controlling most of human population. Nucleur war and over population kind of cancel each other out. Unless radiation is involved, then there is a problem.

Pollution will become a big problem in the near future, I agree. However, we will find some way around it. Whether it gas masks, air filters, or some other machine, humans will adjust.

The deterioration of the O-zone layer is posing somewhat of a threat also. the icecaps melting could also be over come. Just take it as if New Orleans was the world.

[BrIONwoshMunky]

Read Bush's apocolypse. Over population isn't a very big concern. Many epidemics and plagues are soon to come. Natural disasters and such, controlling most of human population. Nucleur war and over population kind of cancel each other out. Unless radiation is involved, then there is a problem.

Pollution will become a big problem in the near future, I agree. However, we will find some way around it. Whether it gas masks, air filters, or some other machine, humans will adjust.

The deterioration of the O-zone layer is posing somewhat of a threat also. the icecaps melting could also be over come. Just take it as if New Orleans was the world.
Waterworld was a movie, not a documentary...

[UberSkippy]

I think the reign of humans on this planet will be over soon, as we stopped our evolution millenia ago. We learned to adapt instead of evolve.

Well, adaptation can be considered a form of evolution. Besides, evolution happens over a period of thousands of years so any major change to the human species would not be noticeable in any of our lifetimes so it's quite hard to say that we've stopped evolving.

[HappyNinja]

Well, adaptation can be considered a form of evolution. Besides, evolution happens over a period of thousands of years so any major change to the human species would not be noticeable in any of our lifetimes so it's quite hard to say that we've stopped evolving.

Funny, the romans didn't seem to be much different, physically, than any of us. We have no innate abilities or characteristics they didn't. We know by studying the remains of humans that lived centuries ago that we haven't really changed at all.

And no, adaptation isn't a form of evolution. Evolution happens on a genetic level. If we evolved, we would change physically to endure differing climates. Adaptation is using technology or nature to endure. Killing creatures for coats when it's cold, air conditioners when it's hot, so on so forth.

[junglizm]

I think the reign of humans on this planet will be over soon, as we stopped our evolution millenia ago. That's conjecture at best. There is simply no evidence to support that. Yes, no profound evolutionary changes have occurred in the past few centuries, but evolution takes a very, very long time.Funny, the romans didn't seem to be much different, physically, than any of us. We have no innate abilities or characteristics they didn't. We know by studying the remains of humans that lived centuries ago that we haven't really changed at all.
And how is that evidence that we won't evolve in a couple thousand years? Again, nothing more than conjecture.

Also, take into consideration that, despite medical advances, human beings live considerably longer now than in even the recent past. A lot of scientists consider that to be a subtle effect of evolution.
If we evolved, we would change physically to endure differing climates.Macro evolution encompasses a whole lot more than simple genetic acclimation. Evolution dictates that a species will slowly evolve into more mentally and physically capable beings as environment dictates.

[UberSkippy]

Funny, the romans didn't seem to be much different, physically, than any of us. We have no innate abilities or characteristics they didn't. We know by studying the remains of humans that lived centuries ago that we haven't really changed at all.

We're taller and live longer. Both of witch could be evolution, or a simple fact of adaptation to medical and dietary advances.

And no, adaptation isn't a form of evolution. Evolution happens on a genetic level. If we evolved, we would change physically to endure differing climates. Adaptation is using technology or nature to endure. Killing creatures for coats when it's cold, air conditioners when it's hot, so on so forth.

There is no rule that says evolution happens on a genetic level. Evolution is simply a change to better suit the environment a species is found in. The use of tools, or a simple change in diet could be described as evolution.

Besides, until we've fully and 100% mapped the human genome there is no way to tell how much we've "evolved" on a genetic level from the Romans.

[HappyNinja]

There is no rule that says evolution happens on a genetic level. Evolution is simply a change to better suit the environment a species is found in. The use of tools, or a simple change in diet could be described as evolution.

To take from dictionary.com:
Evolution:
Biology.

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Adaptation:
Biology.

An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.

Based on the generally accepted definitions of adaptation and evolution, evolution is purely a genetic change. Adaptation is simply an adjustment. The design and use of new tools, medical advances, even diet, are forms of adaptation.

Since the dawn of written history, mankind has remained, relatively, unchanged. In all cultures on all continents of the earth, humans look the same. (disregard skin, hair, eye colors found predominantly in certain parts of the earth.) Our physical and anatomical composition are identical. Internal organs are in the same place in all of us. The same is said for our external anatomy. (again.. mostly. If you want to count conjoined twins and other anatomical anomalies as evolution, be my guest. I won't try to stop you. But realize, most people born with major anatomical anomalies aren't considered healthy, and usually don't live a full, human, life-span.)

If humas had evolved significantly in the last 4-5 thousand years, this is how I would see it. "Humans" living in the hotter climates of the world would have formed some physical means of survive there, without technology. Perhaps evolving to have a shell, like a beetle of some sort, or the ability to burrow. "Humans" living in colder climates might have developed thick fur coats, or layers of blubber. Desert inhabitants would survive on much less water. So on and so forth. Instead of evolving, we have all learned to adapt to the climate in the region we live. A human can move from one climate to a nearly opposite one and thrive there, given the proper technology and knowledge. Try planting a Saguaro cactus in the middle of the Amazon and see what happens.